Labels do matter, despite the famous maxim by William
Shakespeare that “a rose by any other name is just as sweet”. This still holds
true especially in labelling things and abstract concepts. Inevitably, this
leads to adding more definitions to names and thus to the use of retronyms.
For example, people have attached the adjective acoustic to the word guitar to
distinguish it from the electric guitar after the advent of the latter.
Moreover, the show Star Trek that ran
from 1966 to 1969 gradually received the subtitle “The Original Series” after
the release of Star Trek: The Next
Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and Star Trek: Discovery.
Such examples of coined retronyms might help explain why many
religious denominations, especially the Christian ones, object to governmental
extension of the definition of marriage to include non-heterocissexual people,
since they see it as conceptual appropriation. The dispute over such an
extension goes hand in hand with the struggle of such people to achieve the
same civil rights as everybody else, leading inevitably to a conflict with the
freedom of each citizen to practise one’s religion.
People from both the Right and the Left have been speaking
for and against marriage for non-heterocissexual people, and they have been
using various strategies to put their advocacies into practice. For example,
some countries have referring to their “civil marriages” as “civil unions” and
“domestic partnerships”, but such actions have failed to satisfy the rest of
the citizens. The author has drawn upon conjugal terminology to suggest a
better new name for “civil marriage”: nuption.
The author hopes that such a solution might satisfy all citizens from various
ideological persuasions.
The suggestion would go like this: the word marriage would go back at the hands of
religious denominations, and the government would now label “civil marriage” as
nuption. The latter can do whatever it wants with nuption, but the author would
like to recommend some rules for nuption. First, appoint a “nuptializer”, a special
governmental officer whose sole function is to formalize nuptializations.
Second, require pairs under nuptializations to renew their pledges every year,
month, week, or day to eliminate the need for divorce. Third and lastly, require
a rigorous test on a pair to determine if they deserve to enter nuption.
The solution brings certain advantages on both religious and
nonreligious people. First, nonreligious people such as atheists with no ties
to any religion can enter an arrangement separate from marriage, which would
now return to religious domain. Second, religious ministers with objections to
extending marriage to include pairs of the same sex can now take a very deep
breath, as the government can no longer require them to formalize the unions of
such pairs. Third and lastly, such a solution would uphold the separation of
government and religion.
Marginalized people such non-heterocissexual people certainly
deserve fundamental human rights, but it does not mean that any government
should force religious denominations that object to giving them the licence to
engage in non-coital intercourse in the form of marriage to do otherwise.
Crises sometimes demand more solutions that are creative and acceptable to all
at the same time. Let religion have the word marriage back, and let the government keep its nuption.
